Over the last few days I have read expressions of concern about the intervention of the International Secretariat of Amnestry International (specifically Benjamin Zawacki, AI Southeast Asia Researcher and Sam Zarifi, AI Asia-Pacific Director) to prevent a dialogue with Robert Amsterdam organised by AI Malaysia. Amsterdam’s blog has a brief post on the issue here. Yesterday I asked AI’s Benjamin Zawacki if he had any comment on the issue and I have now received the following public statement:

The cancellation of Mr. Amsterdam’s talk in Malaysia due to

1. Amnesty International globally has avoided partisan entanglement in the Thai political crisis. Despite allegations from both sides that the organization supports the Yellow or Red positions and groups, Amnesty has limited itself to the human rights issues and has avoided politics. Amnesty has been in touch with Mr. Amsterdam over the past year and is aware of the substance of his claims, as well as his political strategy, for which he is compensated. In this context, Mr. Amsterdam is a paid advocate of former Thai PM Thaksin, and is thus very clearly a partisan of one side of the political crisis. This is not a value judgment on Mr. Amsterdam’s position, it is simply a factual observation that implicates a rule that Amnesty applies in its work everywhere: remain neutral, objective, and impartial. Sharing a platform with Mr. Amsterdam would place Amnesty in breach of that rule.

2. Moreover, the substance of Mr. Amsterdam’s talk would have been particularly ill-advised for an Amnesty platform. Amnesty International understands that Mr. Amsterdam has presented a petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the alleged commission of crimes against humanity by Thai authorities in April and May 2010. Thailand, however, has not acceded to the Rome Statute establising the ICC, meaning that the only possible way a case based on events involving Thai citizens in Thailand could reach the ICC would be through a referral by the UN Security Council. It is true that following the referral of Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi by the UN Security Council to the ICC, this avenue of seeking accountability has new life. That the international community struggles, however, to get the Security Council to respond to the massacres in the Sri Lankan civil war–in which 20,000 to 40,000 civilians were killed over a few months–is a sobering counterpoint. Thus, while Amnesty would not totally rule out the possibility of international accountability for various events in Thailand, the organization would clearly refrain from publicly taking a position that suggests that referral to the ICC is a feasible, or even desirable, method of seeking accountability in Thailand.

3. Finally, in addressing any situation that involves accountability in Thailand, Amnesty again must maintain its neutrality and avoid political partisanship. Thus, alongside discussion of the allegations raised by Mr. Amsterdam, considerable reference would also need to be made, among other events, to the thousands of extrajudicial executions as part of Mr. Taksin’s “war on drugs” and during counter-insurgency operations in southern Thailand. Mr. Thaksin strenuously combated Amnesty’s efforts to seek accountability for these serious violations. While these infractions of international human rights law do not in any way justify the present Thai government’s unlawful use of lethal force against demonstrators who may be generally labelled pro-Thaksin, they are crucial elements of any discussion of the Yellow-Red dynamic in Thailand, and in particular, of any discussion of justice and accountability in the country. Amnesty was not confident that a talk by Mr. Amsterdam, on an Amnesty platform, would refer to this context adequately.

148 Comments

It’s good that AI would not “would not totally rule out the possibility of international accountability for various events in Thailand”.

Why does Ben Zawacki live in Bangkok, and not Kuala Lumpur? From Kuala Lumpur he could offer unbiased substantiative commentary on Lese Majeste and ‘accountability’ that stems from the Thai state… if he were not rolling in its pig trough lapping up the luxury the Thais afford him. KL is not that much more expensive than Bangkok!

Zawacki, I am sure, is helping to gather information and data from the South that nobody else can, and which couldn’t possibly be delivered to him in Kuala Lumpur.

Shame on AI.

AI’s pathetic position in Bangkok makes AI look particularly partisan to a regime in Thailand that abuses its authority to the Nth degree. And all for what?

Zawacki, please forgive me for seeing this move to distance yourself and AI from Robert Amsterdam slightly hypocritical.

What a load of codswallop. AI could never remain impartial in such a polarised dynamic as is found in Thailand while associating itself with the government, Amsterdam, or the civil service. It is either for the adoption of human rights in these sorts of situations, or it is not.

With Zawacki coddling up to government officials, those in Thai governance are even more able to propagate the image that they are pro human rights, and that they are even doing something about “various” (as Zawacki says) human rights “events”.

At least the Thai Ambassador to Australia, who has a background in human rights law, found it more appropriate to discuss with us international piracy and the laws of the sea shamelessly! Zawacki may as well be doing the same.

Maybe there are a few in Thai governance that are human rights actors, but they’re never going to instigate change at mid level management. Zawacki has coddled Thai government officials, and consequently he has ignorantly been led on by the potential for change.

What change has he really seen? Everyone else has seen a turn for the worse.

Mr Amsterdam is a paid employee of a mass human rights abuser. That alone makes it difficult for AI or any human rights group to give him a platform.

AI must maintain a watch and comment on all human rights abuses in Thailand. This is their job. There have been many by governments of all persuasions as well as both red and yellow groups and others. Right now both in Thailand and among those who comment on it, there is a tendency to talk about some rights abuses while conveniently not mentioning others. This always appears to be based on a poltical agenda. While that is fine for those campaigning, an organization such as AI or HRW (which is readily attacked as biased in parts of the Arab community) must maintain neutrality in political terms and raise all human rights abuses regardless of who by or why. There are no excuses for denying human rights by anyone. They are correct to not get dragged into providing platforms for those willing to take the shilling from human rights abusers. You either believe in human rights or you dont, and in this respect Mr. Amsterdam is compromised. If Mr. Amsterdam were not linked in such an obvious way then AI should not deny him a platform. Mr. Amsterdam as a concerned human being did not have to accept employment to provide PR (propaganda in real terms), but could have said no and held a position where his criticisms carried more weight

On danger of getting attacked and ripped to pieces here, but i believe that in this particular case AI has valid reasons for its refusal to host this particular talk. The international platform is an increasingly important battleground for both the government/state and for the UDD, and by hosting a talk with Amsterdam (and without participation of the state in something like a round table talk, which i don’t see taking place in this polarized situation) such a talk would be a PR victory for the UDD, but at the same time would undermine Amnesty’s position and leverage, especially considering that this is a conflict scenario that most likely has not reached its peak yet.
Amsterdam may very well do an important job on behalf of the UDD, countering the considerable lobbying efforts of the state in the international arena (and there should be more attention paid on how the state is indeed lobbying the outside world!), but he is not an independent investigator.
Indeed, in the past AI has been considerably undermined by the PAD, and by forces of the state – a massive damage which still, as we can see now, AI has to suffer from.

I may not be an expert in the workings of human rights issues, neither have i much experience in this, but this campaign here feels for me about as wrong as the (unfortunately more successful) efforts of the PAD and the state to pull AI into their political PR machine then.

AI s position on Lese Majeste in Thailand is to say nothing. Lese majeste laws imprison people for speaking their own minds. Is not freedom of speech cruicial to human rights? Please stand up to the abuses of power of the state instead of cosying up to such dangerous actions for your own pleasure of living in Thailand.

If AI is waiting for the opportunity to present perfectly balanced positions side by side at one event, it will never present any position. That only plays into the hands of the Thai government, which will remain grateful to AI.

Surely AI could find someone to present views alternative to Amsterdam, if it’s really interested in avoiding a partisan event.

Nick Nostitz and BKK Lawyer, why doen’t they find someone impartial then? Surely they could indeed! And who is impartial about what they want to see happen in Thailand? You? Me? The very good authors of the Thai Political Prisoners blog? That should be the role of AI – to be impartial observers of abuse, and yet they have become increasingly embroiled, partial and subsequently painted into the tapestry of abuse in Thailand as idle conversationalists.

Yes, AI shouldn’t speak to Amsterdam Nick, but neither shouldn’t they be idle on the present Thai government’s constant abuses. They should not be idle on Lese Majeste. Good people don’t contribute to AI for shoegazing. The candle should still be lit for all victims of human rights abuse… those calling for revolution, or not.

Perhaps this is the dirty laundry of AI being aired in public… maybe to counter the ridiculousness of Zawacki courting mid level management government officials (‘sources!’), another cluster of AI organised a talk with Amsterdam? Spurious speculation? Sure, but there’s not a lot else to gain from this.

Mr. Thaksin strenuously combated Amnesty’s efforts to seek accountability for these serious violations.
This comment in para 3 of Zawacki’s piece could be seen as a subconscious justification for desiring revenge against Thaksin’s sleights against AI.

There is more to this issue than Amsterdam. Apart from the link in #3 by It’s Martino there is also the fact that AI were not among the 500 who attended the press conference called by threatened Thammasat University historian Somsak Jiamteerasakul.

There will be an opportunity to discuss these issues on 13 May (12:30pm registration for 1:00pm) at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, Bangkok, when Amnesty presents their annual report.

However, “Attendees will receive the Thai translation of the Amnesty International Report 2011 …but the full report in the English version will be available only for the representative of organizations due to the limitation of copies.”

Zawacki sided with the amaat regime since 2006 and has been convinced of their propaganda. The guy has no credibility to defined what is good and what is not good and makes out of context references to the “evil that was” (referring Thaksin) glossing over atrosities committed by the current regime. He has no backbone to represent a HR org. He said, in relation to getting a balanced viewpoint on my invitation to meet red media early this year, QUOTE:
“I’m not prepared at the moment to meet with red media
(spoken for for the next two months or so on another Thailand issue/project), and am really not prepared to discuss internal strategy on our freedom of expression work in Thailand (in contrast to the public documents of course)…”
Forget him; forget AI.

Surely, if they’d read Robert Amsterdam’s application they would have spotted that Amsterdam is also focusing on Abhisit’s British citizenship which would place him directly under the ICC’s jurisdiction. I mean wasn’t Abhisit’s British citizenship status huge news for a couple of weeks in Thailand? How did Ben Zawacki miss that?

Seems like Ben Zawacki, who is noted in the Thai HR community for his very weak research skills (he can’t speak or read any Thai at all) didn’t even bother to look properly into what he was attempting to dismiss.

Huge huge fail from Ben Zawacki.

And let’s not forget his asking the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for “advice” on Da Torpedo. Ben Zawacki’s email on Andrew Spooner’s post on Asian Correspondent (http://bit.ly/ihgMrC) doesn’t exactly do him many favours when he is lecturing everyone about “neutrality” and not wishing to be seen to be too close to human rights’ abusers, does it?

You have to wonder what else he has been discussing with the Ministry and how much advice they’ve given him on other matters.

He now needs to explain what work he has been doing with the Ministry. More likely he’ll mumble a few excuses.

I was shocked when I heard that Amnesty was going to entertain the paid PR hack of a known human rights abuser. War on drugs aside, Amnesty also protested the massacre of muslims at Tak Bai under the Thaksin regime where, if I may refresh your memory, 85 people ‘suffocated’ in the back of trucks .

Cancelling the dialogue was the only decent thing to do.

Jim: Do you *seriously* expect people to believe that Amnesty International is part of some anti-red plot? Do you really believe this stuff?

Quick question – so what do you think about Ben Zawacki asking the MFA for advice? Be interested to read what you think about that.

As for all everyone else’s comments….

Just so you know there is a lot lot more relating to Ben Zawacki that I can’t reveal at the moment.

From all the documents, emails and stuff I’ve seen what has happened is this.

HRW and AI will not take on lese majeste – ever. What I would say in HRW’s defence is they have remained almost completely silent. AI and Zawacki chose, instead, to make the infamous “we can see why” comment.

My view is this. I believe they’ve been told by the government if they do campaign on lese majeste they have to leave Thailand. That’s just a theory but I have some evidence for that (which yes, tiresomely, I can’t reveal – but look at all the cases of LM were clearly there was no call for “revolution” – AI & HRW are completely silent). If that’s the case they really need to tell everyone.

Ben Zawacki, then relied on the MFA for a translation of the speech that got Da T into trouble to make his decision on Prisoner of Conscience status. He didn’t, by all accounts, get a second opinion (I’ve heard differing views on whether Da T did call for violence – but without proper testing of evidence in an open court it’s a breach of HR anyway as she had no chance to properly defend herself). He also sought further advice from them regarding Da T though the limits of that are harder to define. My assumption is that he then refused to look at independently produced translations which offered a different perspective to the MFA.

So, realising that AI’s position on lese majeste and Da T might be questioned he then went with the MFA’s line which he then used when he visited all the diplomatic missions in Bangkok to explain AI’s position on Da T. He told them that Da T was “violent” and so couldn’t be supported.

This made everyone happy cos it then meant nobody had to grasp the troublesome issue of lese majeste. AI and Ben’s position in Thailand was assured, a diplomatic problem was avoided and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. All thanks to the MFA.

So, while everyone is bickering about Robert Amsterdam, AI Malaysia, Ben Zawacki, the ICC and what have you let’s remember this –

Da Torpedo is imprisoned in deplorable conditions. She did not have an open trial, couldn’t test the evidence laid against her and has been subjected to degrading treatment. She was then, in turn, abandoned by the HR NGOs. Remember that no-one from AI has even been to visit her to check on conditions.

There are real human consequences to AI’s pathetic and partial position in Thailand. And they took this position just so they could continue to work in Thailand, colluded with the Thai government while doing so and then lied to Bangkok’s diplomatic community to cover their own asses.

What’s most amusing to me is that if Zawacki had been on vacation, or somehow AI IS had somehow not even taken notice of it, there is no way the event would have garnered this much attention. Talk about censorship fail…

But Benji really screwed up by admitting that he hasn’t even bothered to read the application. What does that say about his office and its priorities?

I am sorry, but right now i just haven’t got the time to get embroiled in this very complicated discussion, and some of the issues involved touch points that i rather do not discuss in the open, presently.
I report on LM cases and photograph people charged when i have the chance, but it would be too time consuming for me right now to do justice to the complexities (and dangers) involved in this issue in such a discussion here in the internet. Additionally – this is a discussion which is just too uncomfortable for me now. Sorry about that.
I just came back from two of the community radio stations, will not get much sleep because i have to continue working tomorrow. This is for me priority, not campaigning on LM and any other issue.

Does Amnesty International have the resources to personally visit every single detained dissident on the planet? If you aren’t satisfied maybe it’s time to send them a donation. They do a lot more to pursue human rights than any of your precious “democracy-loving” governments do.

Amnesty have pursued Thai governments of all persuasions over every major abuse. Their recent track record includes (but is not limited to) coverage of:

Thats… Bangkok “Massacre” …Simon and your right (Abhisit) is responsible,not for the “riots” as you mistakenly describe events, but for the bloody slaughter of protesters,journalists and medics last year,as are the Army generals,Prem,the King,Queen or whoever will own up to giving the orders .. and the War on drugs death toll (2500)that was described by the King as “trifle”…yes Thaksin is responsible for that along with the above named.Come on Amnesty’s Ben Zawacki says he prefers the low key approach to tackle the Kings Bhumibols role and support for the WOD,Lese Majeste,Death Penalty,Sanctioning of “MASSACRES” .Why ? Is it working ? ..

It starts with an attack on AI not sharing a platform with Robert Amsterdam. Therefore AI doesn’t love Thaksin and UDD. So AI must be the enemy.

Sounds like George Bush. Didn’t he say ‘If you not for us, you must be against us.’ or was that one of his neo-con advisers?

OK, let’s cloud the issue a little. We can talk about AI’s, wrong in my opinion, attitude to the use of the LM law over the last dozen or so years. That proves it then, they against us, they are part of the enemy.

Martino, want to give us a glimpse of the enemies list. Be interesting to see who else is on it.

If that’s really your summation of what I’ve said, then I feel your prejudice about Thai politics has filtered into what you’ve written as reason. There’s no broader ‘if, then, or, else’ argument. My loaded commentary is more to do with AI’s ‘clouding’ of pertinent human rights issues – an internal problem.

AI is certainly not the enemy and it does otherwise fantastic work raising awareness about human rights issues from many parts of the world. The current predicament over Thailand, however, brings shame to that reputation of raising awareness and provokes one to wonder what other particularly significant issues AI’s not reporting on. It’s something that I hope they rectify.

I really have no fate in AI (although there might be some hope with HRW). However, one point I want to make about AI stance about “neutrality” is that if one said (the state in this case) has taken side in disregarding freedom of speech and human right all together, how would AI do its job with taking side?

Furthermore, about Da Torpedo, I couldn’t be more disappointed with AI stance. The reason AI not giving Da the POC status was because she deserved it? from the things that she said? This is just right out ridiculous. First of all, no matter how bad her speech was there’s not a single reason for her to be deny of a proper due process, the close trail and recent result of the case is evidence enough that the state has no concept of due process. How did AI manage to keep its lips shut it beyond me. Second, AI has no right to judge the person guilt, that’s the court’s duty and the last time I check she’s still innocent. How did AI dare to even disregard that fact? do they even know what is their purpose anymore??

No, my questioning of AI has nothing whatsoever to do with the Red Shirts, Thaksin or Robert Amsterdam.

I have been publicly critiquing AI’s stance on Da Torpedo for over 2year. I even went to visit her in prison in February of this year (apparently she has been almost completely ignored by Bangkok’s foreign journalists so I believe I was the first to do so in quite some time – spent an intresting 45mins arguing with the prison guards). I also don’t think I have mentioned the Red Shirts once, anywhere, in any of these critiques of Zawacki and AI.

Who was in government when she was arrested? Thaksin’s PPP.

Who was donating large amounts of money to her every month at the beginning? A key ally of PM Abhisit’s govt.

Complicated, huh, Les? Hard to reduce this into your usual argument,

My point is that if AI can’t do its job properly because of restrictions placed on it by the govt it needs to tell everyone what they are. Not go to that govt for advice and help on deciding whose human rights are being infringed.

Yes, AI do a lot of good work. That shouldn’t be forgotten.

But in Thailand something has gone wrong. And they have refused completely to answer any questions or criticisms. Hence the need to hold them to account (I think accountability, where ever and whoever, is important – just my view).

There is also more about Ben Zawacki’s response to AI Malaysia that I can’t reveal right now. Plenty of this has to do with internal AI politics and Zawacki throwing his weight around and bullying someone lower down the AI food chain than Robert Amsterdam. Once again Zawacki has tried to avoid that in his reply and has produced a response that reads more like a Nation editorial than a considered and balanced response that holds to the values of AI.

I’ve said to AI I will publish any response they want and offered to interview them.

Interestingly enough, I have found it easier to get an interview with a present Thai govt minister that someone from AI.

How strange. I point out the post was on AI not sharing a platform with Robert Amsterdam. I point out that this would be sensible if they didn’t want to be accused of being a part of a propaganda machine. I say that I don’t agree with AI’s stand on LM. And yet it’s stirred up a few people.

If there was a mistake made, it was that someone in AI Malaysia didn’t spot the Robert Amsterdam connection. For AI sharing a platform with him would be as bad as sharing it with Abhisit or the Thai Army.

It seems the accusation being made is that AI have held back on criticizing the LM law in order to continue having a base in Bangkok. If this is true it’s bad, but there should be some sort of proof of the accusation surely. Perhaps AI or Ben Zawacki would like to answer the insinuation here on NM if they don’t want to talk directly with Andrew Spooner.

Just a quick thought on Da Torpedo which in no way excuses the draconian sentence. She did come across as a Joan of Arc sort of personality looking for martyrdom. So Andrew Spooner, maybe the mystery of those for and against her is following Joan’s path, where wasn’t it was some of the French who sold her to the English and the Catholic Church which sentenced her to death. (Yes you are welcome to correct my rather corrupt take on Joan’s history.)

It is incorrect to say that Joan of Arc was sold to the English by “some of the French”. Joan of Arc was captured by Burgundian soldiers. Burgundy was a separate principality that had a long history of hostilities with the French kingdom, and as such was an ally of the English.

More to the point, why are you referring to Da Torpedo in the past tense? She is still alive, and many of us harbour hopes that she will some day be released from her unjust imprisonment. I know that she has had health problems. Are you writing her off as someone doomed to die behind bars?

AI’s track record in Thailand sucks bigtime. I can think of many times when they have just completely missed the boat. I don’t remember them saying anything about the force repatriation of the Hmong refugees to Laos, for instance.

I used to be a regular donor to Amnesty International USA (and my ex-wife in America still is), but I won’t give them another cent until they get rid of Benjamin Zawacki.

OK, I stand corrected and apologize for maligning them for lack of action on this matter. In the lead up to the forced deportation of the Lao Hmong the organization I remember at the forefront of the protests was Doctors without Borders (Medecins sans Frontieres), who were strenuously protesting their restricted access to Hmong in the Petchabun camp by the Thai military. I don’t think it was my memory that was at fault, however. I believe AI simply may not have achieved sufficient press coverage in the English language Thai newspapers by their releases, and I don’t regularly check their website or receive their emails anymore.

AI isn’t off the hook for remaining silent on free speech and LM/”computer crimes” abuses, though. It will be interesting to see what they do when Prof. Somsak gets arrested!

“Quick question – so what do you think about Ben Zawacki asking the MFA for advice? Be interested to read what you think about that.”

I have a bit of time, and i have thought about your question (and which part of the discussion i will definitely not engage in). There is one basic premise in your article that i have a problem with, and i quote you here first:

“Of course, for Amnesty to be engaged in such a collusion with a Thai government department whose Minister, Kasit Piromya, is so closely associated with the PAD, an organization deemed “fascist” by the Asian Human Rights Commission, is staggering. How can Mr. Zawacki’s judgement be trusted when he is working cheek by jowl with the Thai government? How far does Amnesty’s much vaunted neutrality extend in Thailand, if it ever existed at all?”

You conclude, or make it appear that because Kasit is Minister of Foreign Affairs, automatically the whole MFA is the same. It isn’t. There are more than a few bureaucrats of the MFA who do have serious problems with Kasit, his views and his style of working. Ministers come and go, but the bureaucrats remain. As an aside, i know one MFA bureaucrat who is one the absolute opposite of both Kasit and PAD, and i believe he would be quite offended if he would be put into the same political boat as them. And knowing him does not mean that i “collude” with this government (or any other government, organization, etc).
Kasit is not closely associated with the PAD anymore since late last year at least – on the opposite, he is the government minister that is treated now maybe with the most vile insults from the PAD stage.
I have also a problem with the summary term of “fascist”. I personally try to avoid this term as it describes a particular brand of political philosophy from Italy in the 1930’s, and cannot be easily translated into the Thailand of the 2000’s, unless you want to create certain associations – and in this case you are moving on a very thin line between journalism and activism.

It is your decision, but if, as you said, this was a private and confidential conversation indeed, shouldn’t you have found better ways to get your points across?

Yep, call a spade a spade – the PAD display, in my opinion (and countless others), the classic signs of fascism. It was the Asian Human Rights Commission who first suggested the PAD exhibited the classic signs of facism, not me. And no, fascism is not just confined to 1930s Italy (actually, if you’re quoting history, Mussolini’s Italian fascists took power in the 1920s. It was Hitler’s Nazis, a political identity that broadened and extended Mussolini’s fascist ideas, that took power in the 1930s). Please do remember that the founding of modern Thailand as a political entity drew a lot from the Japanese style facism of the first half of the 20th Century with Sarit, a PAD hero, being the ultimate embodiment of Thai-style fascism (in my opinion).

Should I have published a private email? Journalism all over the world publishes private correspondence and documents if it is in the public interest. How else would people find out what governments, big business and institutions are up to if journalists didn’t do that? Sit and politely wait to be told. To be frank I am a bit incredulous to have to argue that point to another journalist.

For the record I have had the contents of that email (and other private as yet unpublished correspondence) for almost a year. It was only when Ben Zawacki claimed neutrality, when clearly I was aware he had some explaining to do regarding the comments in that private email regarding his seeking advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that I could no longer remain silent. I don’t think he is neutral. At all. And AI Thailand has been riddled with PAD members for a long time (eg back in 2008 AI Thailand were forced to delete an explicitly pro-PAD statement from their website).

I’m sure some very nice people work at the Thai MFA. I know some decent people who work at the Minsitry of Finance.

Just not sure that means Ben Zawacki should be seeking their advice regarding the status of political prisoners though. From what I understand occured BZ wouldn’t look at independently produced translations of Da T’s speech. He took the MFA’s line and used that.

My final point is this – Is working that closely with a government you’re supposed to be investigating (however pleasant some individuals may or may not be in that government) a sign of acting neutrally?

I believe you are confusing a few things here.
First of all – yes, the PAD has some elements that are clearly displaying signs of fascism, but it’s not that simple. There are also former members of the communist party there as well, and also anarchist philosophy is very strongly represented. Believe it or not, strange as it sounds – but there are quite a few republicans in the PAD as well. I would call the PAD an Asian form of Third Positionism. Similarly somewhat conflicting political alliances you had in the past in National Bolshevism.

I think you confuse Ben personally with AI Thailand having been undermined by the PAD. I do know for a fact that he was everything else than happy about this, as i discussed this point with him. You cannot simply conclude that because the local office having been infiltrated Ben colluded or agreed with this and is therefore siding with the state.

You disclosed a private email between you and Ben. You did not find a leak and disclose such a leaked conversation (which is standard procedure in journalism). I personally view this somehow as a breach of confidence. How can you expect people to trust you in the future when they cannot be sure that a year or so after you disclose confidential emails?
Part of journalism as well is that when you come out with such a potentially damaging article, you give the person you attack a chance to make a statement before you come out with this story.

That should answer also your final question: have you given Ben advance notice that you will disclose this one year old private email, and given him a chance to qualify or comment his statement regarding the MFA, or add something to it before your published your article, and signed the letter that appeared just a day or two after your artcile?

Amsterdam can hardly be called a neutral investigator. He is just doing his job, and an important part of this job is to draw as much attention to the cause of the Red Shirts (as the government does everything to discredit the Red Shirts). Part of the job of both opponents is to get as many foreign organizations or media outlets on their side.
Important part of our job as journalists is to withstand the pressure of all sides, and stay independent in our reporting, witness and research the facts as well as we can possibly do. That is even more important for AI. Different sides of a conflict lobbying us is just part of the game. In 2008 the local Thai AI office screwed up here big time, and the Malaysian AI office hosting Amsterdam (and not just appearing in a round table discussion), as i understand the situation, could have been about as damaging for AI.

The complications of the Da Torpedo case we can one day discuss in person (and definitely not via email). I have been around the Sanam Luang stage where and when she was active. The only thing i will say here is that i personally feel very sorry for her, and also because she is used as a symbol for a multitude of agendas by many people (of all sides of the mess here) who will not have to spend the endless years in prison she will most definitely will have to.

I don’t think Andrew Spooner is confusing anything at all if there has been ‘infiltrations’ in AI Thailand. I hardly think you can use the word ‘infiltration’, for PAD sympathisers being involved in AI, as I’m sure many of those people worked for AI before 2006.

And really, one’s political position in employment shouldn’t be taken above their desire to work in the cause of human rights promotion. And if one’s political position has come to superseed one’s desire to work in the cause of human rights advocacy, then what are they still doing employed by AI? Can Ben Zawacki employ people for AI Thailand? Ah.

So, with regards to a breach of confidence, Ben Zawacki has breached our confidence. The confidence of the public that contributes to his salary. What has your point got to do with the thrust of the article and its comments? That somehow Andrew Spooner’s points are less valid because he breached Zawacki’s (and your?) trust? Ridiculous. Spooner’s commentary on this is great because it aims to the heart and truth of the matter. Something you know about right? That’s good journalism. Relying on a leak – you sound like you’re from a government! Are you trying to damage Spooner’s reputation with a breach of confidence accusation that borders on the ad hominem? That you’re resorting to this sort of argument for Zawacki only demonstrates how little he has to stand on.

Why doesn’t Zawacki respond himself? That he issues himself a press statement on here rather than making a guest contribution only gives the impression he believes he is from an institution that still has respect.

Moreover, Ben Zawacki has had years now to respond to Lese Majeste, and he has not done so – so he can hardly find it surprising that he wasn’t given any time to respond or come up with some rubbish that would only add to his stupidity and delay his resignation.

What’s really damaging for AI, Nick, is that they are gormless in the face of something that’s at the cause of an egregious human rights abuse to protect their image (… and dare I say, business!) in the country that commits the abuse!

Nick, even you are now writing with a legalistic tone – have you been infiltrated by Ben Zawacki? Frankly, I find what you’ve written here vexatious and only demonstrative of the unconscionable and incorrigibly detached attitude of Zawacki, AI (and HRW) in the face of LM. As his spokesperson, did you ask him why he hadn’t moved to Kuala Lumpur? I hope when you’re next talking to Zawacki you’re playing a very small violin as he moans about his poor treatment. When he’s done whinging, ask him about the treatment of Da Torpedo.

Also journalism has its rules, procedures and issues of ethical conduct. It’s not an anything goes world. Therefore my questions to Andrew, which i would like to have answered (by him) before i comment any further.

I am not willing to add my opinion on lese majeste, and my personal perception on this and related issues as they are far too sensitive to just sprout more opinions in public adding to the overwhelming white noise of existing perception based on opinions.

Different than most here involved in the discussion – i am not using an alter ego, i live in Thailand and don’t sit in Europe, Australia or in the US. And so do the majority of people who may have to go to jail, or may get killed over this issue if and when this topic gets more aggravated and polarized, also to some degree because of people that will not have to ever fear the consequences of their armchair activism. Sorry if i am lacking the correct political convictions, my street perspective gives me little time and space to formulate political ideologies over this conflict other than that i am sick of having to see people (regardless of affiliation) die.

“The heart and truth of the matter” is unfortunately a lot more complex than your emotive and superficial statement of “an egregious human rights abuse to protect their image (… and dare I say, business!)”. And from journalistic articles, or academic studies, concerning this matter, i expect a reflection of the complications involved, and if possible, also the the views and perceptions of both sides reflected, for the sake of balance. That is especially important with such a sensitive subject matter.
And that is all i will say presently over Da Torpedo, the 112 issue, and related matters.

To quote myself from nearly a year ago (and it’s only got worse since then):

The LM laws are the glue that binds everything that keeps the status quo.
All debate on the systemic problems is stifled by the 15 year jail sentence hanging over the heads of anyone who steps too far in talking about (or even seeking) the truth – those that the brainwashing has not affected, then either play along to reap the rewards (vested interest) or opt for self censorship (understandable self interest).
It’s a brilliant setup, the trap is now complete – after decades of one sided propaganda, no political party can touch on the subject of detoothing LM without committing political suicide.http://nganadeeleg.blogspot.com/2010/06/bye-bye-thailand.html

Thank’s to Darunee, Surachai & others for having the courage of their convictions – I lack your courage, and I hope by calling a spade a spade I have not made things worse for you.
Goodluck to you, and to Thailand.

I want Da T released. Simple. No agenda, nothing else. Implying that those who have campaigned for her release have another agenda seems a bit misplaced.

Yep completely aware that BZ works for the International Secretariat (which, incidentally, is a private company) and is separate to AI Thailand.

When I published my story I sent AI (this is alongside months and months of futile attempts trying to get them to answer on anything) a correspondence stating I would be willing to publish any statement they want on these allegations. No response.

I really want AI and BZ to explain the allegations I have raised. If they don’t respond that is really a problem for them and not me.

As for ethics – well, I would it call it deeply unethical to basically censor other AI members in the name of neutrality while you are engaged in far less than neutral activities yourself. And all the while representing an organisation that loudly claims accountability and transparency and asks for public donations to sustain it (which are then used to pay off former AI members to the tune of US$900,000 – a detail AI initially refused to admit).

The public interest argument is an interesting one when disclosing private correspondence. As the email I have is a classic “leak” from a third party and catches someone who claims to be both neutral and publicly accountable in a lie, there is, in my opinion, public interest in publishing it. In fact, I can’t think of a better example of when a private correspondence should be published.

I am more than aware of the excellent work you do and your credibility. But how you choose to work doesnt give you (or anyone else) an exclusive right to comment on matters in Thailand, wherever they may live. And, as I am sure you’re more than aware, opinion pieces are as much a part of journalism as boots on the ground reporting. Of course we could get into a larger debate about the nature of objectivity and whether it is acheivable or not or whether it is just a guiding principle or whether just shop window dressing or etc etc. If we did we might get sucked into the whirlpool of structuralism, post-structuralsim, postmodernism and New Mandala would soon disappear up its own backside.

Andrew,
sorry, my wrong, i should have read the article with more attention (i really am a bit overworked right now).

But that still leaves my criticism over your summary statements regarding the MFA leaving the impression that it is on the same side as Kasit’s (previous) association with the PAD. Why should organizations not also be in contact with the state? Should i, as a journalist, not be in contact with the state as well as with the state’s opponents?
Also, as this whole thing has been initiated by Ben’s actions regarding the hosting of Amsterdam by the Malaysia MI office (as you state in the article). Don’t you see that this is potentially very compromising position for AI, maybe as damaging as the 2008 events and AI here in Thailand?
Or do you think that Amsterdam in his capacity as a lawyer for the UDD is that of a neutral investigator?
The article is wide sweeping, and includes also a very emotive “he is exposed as colluding directly with a government that has used snipers against civilians, imprisoned hundreds, tortured many, cluster bombed their neighbours and which has one of the most draconian censorship regimes on earth.” This may all have happened, but for the sake of balance it should be included that some parts of the Red Shirts were not exactly peaceful as well. Things rarely are just black and white, and definitely not here in this ongoing mess.

I am feeling a bit uncomfortable with all this. Sorry about that. I also feel uncomfortable with the letter issued straight away (which – sorry again – looks to me a bit like mobbing). Are you sure that you just report “the facts”, or just one side of the facts involved? And that you are not having been made a tool of another agenda that involves more than just human rights, etc.?
Excuse these questions, they are out of concern, not malice. AI, human rights issues, campaigning and internal politics of these organizations are not my field of expertise.
But some of the things you wrote that are basis of your criticism touch my field, and there i noticed some simplifications that are misleading, in my opinion.

I believe that you want Da Torpedo released. But fact is that the Da Torpedo issue touches on far wider reaching matters of this conflict, and so does the 112 debate, and all that is related to this. This complicates the matter enormously. Again, one day, we can (and should) talk about this in person.

I am beginning to run out of time. Sorry. Lets leave it at this for now. Please just note me being quite uncomfortable with all this, and thanks for the nice comment.

Secondly, I believe the case made against the Red Shirts is made ad infinitum elsewhere – they have an entire state, a mostly supine media and huge parts of a vast military arrayed against them. This is as the same time as their own media is being shutdown and censored. If my tiny bit of blogging coverage gives some overall balance to that, then I am happy. But, in reality, my voice is quite small and inconsequential in comparison.

For the record, I am not a Red Shirt and have never claimed to be one. I am sympathetic to the grass roots of that movement and other elements contained within its broad sweep. Back in 2005 and 2006 I was also sympathetic to those holding Thaksin to account (might be harder to find but I am in print with my views at that time). Most of the things I write now are criticising the govt and the military and are not necessarily “pro-Red”. Because I have taken this line people assume I am a “Red”.

I too have some good contacts within the Thai government and completed a very in-depth interview, one to one, with FM Korn (who gave me 90mins of his time), at the Thai parliament.

However, I don’t just take “their word” on what has happened nor would I trapse around to meetings with various ambassadors in Bangkok repeating, word for word, what these government contacts told me and then asserted it as “fact”. I believe that in the case of Da T Ben Zawacki did exactly that and sought no further advice.

As for the AI Malaysia intervention – I take the line put out by Jimmy Buchanan. That if AI had already been doing their job in Thailand this would have been a non-issue. But they aren’t so it is. People with AI Thailand are already aggrieved with Ben Zawacki.

Yes, am fully aware of all the ramifications of 112, Da T and the shades of grey inbetween. Here’s what I wrote in comment 28 above

“Who was in government when she was arrested? Thaksin’s PPP.

Who was donating large amounts of money to her every month at the beginning? A key ally of PM Abhisit’s govt.”

You do some really excellent work Nick – I have just chosen to work in a different way, that is all. And yes, I’d be more than happy to meet you next time I am in Bangkok.

What a rotten yesterday. The only silver lining was the parasitic royal family had to pay for their own party. The people pay anyway, but this time round they didn’t send the bill to the taxpayers and finally picked up the tab themselves for once.

I say parasitism though it should be parasitoid given Philip’s views:

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation”

Philip has no idea of course that when the peasants took Versailles many accounts described the human vivisection that took place.

” I believe that in the case of Da T Ben Zawacki did exactly that and sought no further advice.”

There you are wrong.

“That if AI had already been doing their job in Thailand this would have been a non-issue.”

If you mean with that statement that the 112 issue, or that the Da Torpedo case would be a non-issue, i believe that AI Malaysia is both overestimating AI’s influence, and misanalysed the situation here.

Amnesty International, as I understand it, was set up to defend and protect individual prisoners of conscience. They don’t need to take any other position than this. They don’t need to make fine calculations about the global ramifications of what they’re doing or not doing. They need to look after individuals.

Re your comment at #40. Yes, what I wrote initially in that comment was not particularly articulate. And I am sorry to be so judgemental. Yes I very much understand why you cannot comment, and was not really expecting you to do so. I have the impression that Ben Zawacki has angered many people, and that this has been an issue for some time.

You say you “believe that AI Malaysia is both overestimating AI’s influence, and misanalysed the situation here.” I think that it’s not so much about what’s achievable immediately for Da Torpedo, but our collective desire to see greater protest to end the draconian use of LM?

Actually she’s still innocent since the court (not sure which one anymore) just ruled that her 18 months jail time was invalid due to technicality but she’s still remain in jail for what reason is still puzzled me.

“I think that it’s not so much about what’s achievable immediately for Da Torpedo, but our collective desire to see greater protest to end the draconian use of LM?”

And that is one of the problems and difficulties of the matter – greater public protest can quite easily result in the opposite – and increased use of LM, and increased sentences against the accused and convicted. A polarization of Thai society in regards of LM and naturally related issues (which we begin to see now) is potentially disastrous in ways only religious conflicts can be. This is not just a matter of ratio, but of deep seated believes and emotions.

Without a fair trial to test the evidence in an open court there is no way whatsoever that AI can come to the conclusion that Da T is “guilty” of any offence never mind one that puts her in jail for 18years.

Yet, Ben Zawacki, based solely on what the MFA told him condemned her and then told the ambassadors she was “guilty” and should be completely abandoned. That is a pathetic and shameful situation for both Zawacki and AI to be in.

If AI are restricted in their work in Thailand because of 112 they need to tell people. Not hide, like cowards, behind excuses designed only to protect Ben Zawacki’s position and then refuse, point blank, to answer any questions regarding this position. Except in this instance Ben Zawacki actually came out and said “we can see why” Da T is imprisoned (in a closed court, where no evidence can be tested). He actually supported her conviction (based on a closed trial when she cant test the evidence) and her imprisonment, both privately and publicly.

And, despite all that why hasn’t Zawacki been to visit Da T even when she had the terribly painful jaw infection or when she was being singled out for special treatment? Or maybe he “can see why” that is happening to her as well?

My “non-issue” comment is the other way around. If Zawacki wasn’t so obviously partial in Thailand his Malaysia intervention would’ve been a non-issue. There is a lot of bad feeling building against this guy and AI – and plenty of it is coming from Thai AI members and other human rights’ activists.

If there was greater external pressure over the abuse of Lese Majeste.. by, for instance, AI International pulling out of Thailand, do you think this would exacerbate the polemic domestically? I don’t expect you to answer that, as an answer would be wading into dangerous territory.

I’d imagine one relatively small organisation (in Thailand) like AI pulling out of the country wouldn’t have any effect on the contractions of opression that you refer to. However, internationally AI International pulling out of Thailand would create major headlines. Ben Zawacki could have his face plastered all over BBC World etc, and people would confuse him with Moby, and they’d believe Moby was saying bad things about the Thai government. People would listen. The publicity about the LM law would have to be sustained. Tourism would be effected. Pressure amplified through public diplomacy. Maybe those wielding the beating stick would tone down the promotion of LM to Thais. Or, if we return to the polemic paradigm, perhaps Thailand would become more isolated. Suicide for the Thai economy. And its elites abusing this law. Of course, a very superficial analysis. But that’s where we, outside, have to exert pressure in my opinion: the national wallet. Playing on the economic polemic would be more corrosive to the oppression than, say, banning a talk with Robert Amsterdam. I’m not suggesting we touch on deep seated emotions and feelings of the people, but more indirectly put pressure on elites who propagate the peoples’ deep seated feelings for their own gain.

Oh! But then AI couldn’t carry out it’s important investigative research and visiting prisoners of conscience (like Da Torpedo) unlike the myriad of other human rights organisations.

I should not be quite so supercilious, but I am fairly cynical about things. Anyway, just some thoughts on your response.

Nick #53, that’s because it IS a religion. That’s why no amount of reasoning will explain the LM madness. Everything is based on belief, it makes everything possible. One of which is stoning someone to death for their sins.

What is Amnesty’s job? To plead for the release of prisoners of conscience, whether it be one prisoner or thousands, and to agitate against the conditions which allow prisoners of conscience to be incarcerated.

Were the laws under which Da Torpedo was charged and convicted commensurate with the right to free expression? I think not.

Did Da Torpedo receive a free and open trial? Definitely not.

Nick thinks that Amnesty needs to proceed tactically because the issue is divisive and there could be all sorts of consequences from agitating for her release. He is right of course. But none of us can predict the future and it might equally be the case that agitation for Da Torpedo’s release would inhibit the government and army from further repressive measures.

And it might even be successful in releasing Da Torpedo

Amnesty’s strength and great claim has always been that they operate with regard to principle not political expediency. They have campaigned for the release of prisoners whose convictions and so-called crimes are communist, capitalist, democratic, religious, republican, monarchist, whatever. And against all sorts of regimes. The central focus of Amnesty’s work has always been protection of the individual, not the reform of social or political systems or the advancement of a particular social or political agenda.

Meanwhile, one person, Da Torpedo (and others too), suffer in prison. Amnesty should uphold their principles by fighting for her. They don’t need to proclaim their support for her ideas, they don’t need to think of her as someone who might have to suffer now in order that others may not need to later.

They need to think of her as the suffering individual that she is. That’s how Amnesty has worked in the past and that’s what it should do now.

Amnesty mentioned the closed trial but then didn’t mention the resulting prison sentence, the denial of proper medical treatment and the denial of bail even though the original trial and verdict have been overthrown. At all. Anywhere. Ever.

If there was something I could say to give AI’s stance balance I would. But there isn’t. Their failures in Thailand are shameful and Ben Zawacki has quite rightly lost the respect and confidence of many people. He should either resign or be moved on.

Thailand is engaged in a bitter, protracted political struggle. Ideology, money, power. The usual noxious mix. The presence of AI, or any human rights group, is neither here nor there. This struggle will go on and on. More will die.

Only the US government and maybe China have any leverage to influence the outcome. NGOs, academics, reporters – we don’t count for much.

Tourism will be affected? Yeah, right. After SARS, a tsunami, coup, street riots etc, do you see any fewer holidaymakers? No.

More to the point, why are you referring to Da Torpedo in the past tense? She is still alive, and many of us harbour hopes that she will some day be released from her unjust imprisonment. I know that she has had health problems. Are you writing her off as someone doomed to die behind bars?

Not intentionally Arthurson, but she did come across, to me at least, as someone looking for martyrdom. Now I could be well be wrong and she may be in the Gandhi mold rather than the Joan one.

Mind boggling assumption Les. Suggestive of a sneering disrespect for those who do respond to your baiting. Oops, just did it. I agree with others on up this list. It is a very interesting report, with some new information based on interviews. My guess is that both sides will be able to use it. It got considerable TV coverage last evening on one cable news channel, and the reporting was pretty unbiased.

Mind boggling assumption Les. Suggestive of a sneering disrespect for those who do respond to your baiting.

Not sure if that’s correct Ralph. Possibly? Yes maybe I am baiting some of the usual suspects, and that is something I shouldn’t really do as it’s just easy point scoring.

I guess the problem for those who are pushing a more propagandist line is that when an independent organization like HRW or AI reports outside their script there isn’t much you can do except class those organizations as being part of the enemy.

I have just finished reading the summary and although I feel some of the lead up to the army shooting protesters on April 10th. has been missed, (it may be still in the details later in the report), I can accept most of what they say. Now for red shirt supporters it will cause considerable problems. The HRW report paints such a different history to what the UDD leadership, their supporters and Robert Amsterdam have been writing these last few months that it leaves them very little room to maneuver except of course to attack HRW.

Maybe I’m wrong, (although we have had a slight smell of the attack on HRW already), and we could have a general agreement saying it’s a good base to work from to identify faults. It’s worth noting that the HRW report has five key recommendations to the government, none of which will particularly be fondly received by either them or the army.

Now a little mea culpa. I said to Andrew Marshall that care should be taken on anything that looked like a ‘Zinoviev Letter’ before the election. Could the HRW report be looked at in this way? I’m not sure if that argument could stand, mainly because of the HRW’s own reputation, but I’m sure others have a view on this.

In an interview at Government House, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaungsuban has voiced disappointment after the international human rights organizations Human Rights Watch has reported that Thai soldiers have caused the death of civilians during the red shirt protests, where 91 people have died. He said that after he saw the news he felt sad because he thinks such an organization should be neutral and not be inclined to take sides […] before they say anything and damage the public image of Thailand, [thus they] should have checked their facts properly first. [Suthep laments] where that organization was during the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, when they killed 3,000 people [“War on Drugs”] but hasn’t heard a thing from them.

“That organization should better look into their own country first before, […] [like] John F. Kennedy’s assassination, nothing is still clear about that. Thus all sides are still working and searching for facts, such as the independent [Truth and Reconciliation] Commission of Mr. Kanit na Nakorn […] we should listen more to them rather than some foreigners. The commission, that the government has set up, has just worked for 10 months and continues to do so […]”

RK: Suthep gets several facts wrong here, but let’s ignore that and his continuation of the anti-foreign discourse and just look at his continuing denial that ANY deaths were caused by the army. Doesn’t that just sound like a demented rant?

Ralph, that’s the great thing about an independent report, everyone will hate it. It has nothing good to say about the Thai army for example and the Abhisit government is attacked for, amongst other things, its post May 2010 censorship and treatment of detainees. It doesn’t pull any punches on subjects like the temple killings.

But then comes the problem for some. Do we say ‘yes they’re right on that’, but then complain they got it wrong on armed elements linked to the protesters, shooting soldiers on April 10th., or the blame being laid at the UDD’s door for the Central World fire. If there are no complaints then where does leave Jataporn and his CW story, or Robert Amsterdam and his report. Do we call them liars?

Then of course HRW have given us a lovely potted history of recent times in Thailand, including the war on drugs and the insurgency in the south. The great man doesn’t come out of too well. Is he really worth all this loss of life?

It will be interesting to see if the HRW report gets anywhere near the publicity given to the Amsterdam one, even here on NM. At the moment for such an important historical record it’s getting very little.

Oh yes Abhisit’s government and the military were condemned by HRW:
”In plain view government forces shot protesters and armed militants shot soldiers, but no one has been held responsible,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

But anyone reading HRW report carefully and with an open mind would conclude that the Red Shirts leaders, along with their very violent Black Shirts and General Khattiya led Red guards, were deliberately baiting and provoking the Abhisit government/military (through their assault rifles, M79 grenade launchers vicious everywhich way attacks and fiery/inflammatory rhetorics) expecting a bloody carnage of their own Red followers from a military crackdown.

Because HRW had accurately painted the ugliness of the Red Shirts movement and its leaders in their May 3, 2011 report, that report had not been getting the ‘publicity’, as Les noted, at NM or AsianCorrespondent or Prachatai or any of the Red Shirts sympathetic blogsites.

p/s: I’d be very interested to know what the Australian, Scottish and British Andrews think about the recent HRW report.

If the Men in Black were the justification for the Thai government to use force why did the Thai Army end up shooting nurses, kids and random people carrying flags?

Why didn’t the Thai Army kill, capture or otherwise arrest one single “MiB”?

And if the connections between the MiB and the Red Shirts were so concrete why has no substantive evidence ever been produced? Why would the Thai government hold that back?

Plenty to like in the HRW report – and plenty which is actually in full agreement with Amsterdam’s claims – but the situation requires proper evidence from a body like HRW, not flimsy theories dressed up as substantive statements.

Feigning balance just to play to the crowd doesn’t bring anyone closer to the “truth”.

Of course I did Ralph and so far I suspect their silence proves what an embarrassment the HRW report is to them. It’s not a million miles away from Andrew Marshall’s reporting, but the divergence from Robert Amsterdam’s report shows the difference between independent and paid for.

Prior to the report’s release both Andrew Spooner and Martino were querying HRW’s approach to the LM laws, which of course is what they dislike about AI. It will be interesting to see their reaction to the report.

For myself I’m quite pleased as I didn’t know the report was coming and thought it would be a long time before we had anything like an independent history of last year’s troubles, although I am still looking forward to Nick’s volume 3.

What pleases me most of all is I don’t think I have written anything over the last year that diverges that much from what’s in the report, or anything that’s particularly out of sync with the Appendix : Timeline of Thai Political History through the Election of Thaksin Shinawatra. Although I didn’t really know when talking about the Class Five generals that The junta controls of the Defense Ministry and resumes its scandalous arms procurement, which Chatichai had suspended. They also begin to venture into Thailand’s booming satellite and telecommunication sector, awarding large-scale contracts to business allies, including Thaksin Shinawatra.

In Brad Adams brief comments here below on “crackdown”at the House of Lords,Adams says “the military backed by the Palace has acted with inpunity over many decades” So I wonder why if this is the case why Amnesy’s Benjamin Zawacki still praises of the King in his reports and still allows them to be shown on AI websites.Also interesting is why Brad Adams hasn’t reflected this comment in official HRW statements.Could not Amnesty and HRW,at least communicate with each other and sing from the same hymn sheet,and have the honesty to retract statements that are either unknowlingly false or that might have been given in good faith,but later found to be untrue(i.e.Redshirts burned Central World,but NEW evidence suggests otherwise)On record claims that the King backed the “war on drugs”,and comments like “the idea came from this man” make it essential that the public and worldwide goverments be told the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZT4oxwy7U&feature=player_embedded#at=2797

(andrewspooner#73) While you raise some worthwhile questions about the Men in Black, you also offer up some very disingenuous comments.

I cannot say off the top of my head whether the Army arrested some alleged MiB, but DSI/police certainly did, afterwards, and in several cases made quite a display of it. Anyone who follows Thai news is aware of this. And the Red Shirts leaders were always rather evasive about their relationship with the MiB, but certainly did not disavow them, or, to the best of my recollection, their actions.

So who do you think was firing those M-79s – including at civilian targets on Silom Road – and why didn’t the Red Shirt leaders distance themselves more from the shooters at the time? Why, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, do you think it is not a duck?

Ralph, fortunately Andrew Spooner did jump in to reinforce the point I was making.

Andrew Spooner – 73

First let’s get rid of the straw man. I never got the feeling from the HRW report that it suggested there could be any justification for shooting unarmed civilians. It very much points the finger at the army on both April 10th. and May 19th. for either having bad orders from the government, or out of control or poorly trained soldiers.

So after saying there was plenty to like in the report you attack HRW as below.

…but the situation requires proper evidence from a body like HRW, not flimsy theories dressed up as substantive statements.

Feigning balance just to play to the crowd doesn’t bring anyone closer to the “truth”.

So can we take it that you think HRW is making things up, i.e. telling lies, and doing this so it can play to what you call the crowd? Who is this crowd? Doesn’t look like it includes the Thai government by Ralph’s report of Suthep’s reaction.

I guess if we kept, “Plenty to like in the HRW report – and plenty which is actually in full agreement with Amsterdam’s claims” and threw away the rest you would like it a little better. Funny thing is Suthep is probably saying something very similar except he would keep the parts you throw away and throw away the parts you keep;-)

First of all, and let’s demolish your “straw man” from the off. No-one is claiming anywhere, least of all myself, that HRW are trying to justify the deaths of anyone. That’s an absurd, inaccurate and outright ridiculous comment to make. However, many many many commentators have used the Men in Black as a convenient excuse to justify the Army’s actions.

Secondly it’s not a question of me “liking” anything in the HRW report but more to do with what they can stand up on the evidence they have.

And they can’t stand up either the cause of the Central World fire or the links between the Reds and the Men in Black. They just don’t have any substantive evidence to do that. It is so thin as to be almost non-existent.

What I would “like” is a proper, thorough, independent inquiry, maybe similar in scope as that which is presently being conducted into the death of Rafic Hariri. Not unsubstantiated proclamations by a human rights’ NGO who repeatedly made half-cocked premature comments about what went on in April/May 2010. That’s before we get onto HRW’s (and AI’s) complete failure to deal with lese majeste and their reasons for this failure. They are both compromised on this issue and they both know it and both refuse to be transparent about it. Until they do so their notion of “balance” is as compromised as anyone elses.

In reply to Superanonymous – just saying stuff, over and over again, doesn’t make it true.

Nor is just “saying stuff” evidence of balance.

Who did fire the M79s down Silom Road? No one can say with any certainty.

Who did kill Romklao? No one can say with any certainty.

Who was commanding the Men in Black? No one can say with any certainty.

Who set-fire to Central World, which was under Army control when the main fire was set? No one can say with certainty.

So, while the efforts of the HRW report cannot and should not be dismissed, to accept any weak evidence as “fact”, just because it satisfies a liberal notion of “balance”, is something I just can’t sign up to.

What is certain, however, is that the Thai Army killed unarmed civilians in large numbers on Bangkok’s streets.

And, at the time when they were shooting nurses, kids and other unarmed civilians, the Army did not capture, kill or apprehend one single MiB. As you state, any arrest was made AFTER the crackdown.

As for the Red Shirt leaders links to the MiB, I interviewed Arisman last year – this is what he said

“What can you tell us about the Black Shirts?

I don’t really have any information about the Black Shirts. I don’t know who they are or where they are from. I believe, though can’t say for certain, that they were either soldiers or police officers who supported our struggle for democracy. I don’t think every soldier or police officer was able to accept the action of the government to attack unarmed civilians. So far, the government has been unable to arrest any Black Shirt. In fact, I want to know who they were.”

Do we believe him? Personally, I don’t know what to believe. Maybe the MiB were acting under orders of the Red Shirt leadership. Maybe they were agent provocateurs. Maybe they were acting independently of both the Red Shirts and government. And maybe it was a mix of all three.

The “incompetence” argument is also absurd. You don’t “accidentally” shoot someone with a sniper’s rifle. You target and execute them.

The Thai Army have been doing this kind of massacre for over 40years. Or maybe 1973, 1976, 1992, Tak Bai, Rohingya etc etc were all just as a result of “incompetence”?

seems to me the main message out of the HRW report is that an independent formal investigation supported by waiving of all impunities including those claimed by military and state personnel and prosecution of all involved in the incidents is required

the rest of the HRW report just records the evidence they have gathered that substantiates their claim that the real investigation and prosecution should be carried out

note that the Thanit of the Thai Truth and Reconciliation committee is on record that they were unable to access military and state people and therefore their investigation essentially stalled

while impunities are in place Thailand continues to suffer the results of unaccountable power….

So, while the efforts of the HRW report cannot and should not be dismissed, to accept any weak evidence as “fact”, just because it satisfies a liberal notion of “balance”, is something I just can’t sign up to.

So Andrew, let’s call a spade a spade then. Do you think that the HRW report is unreliable because they have purposely set out to satisfy a liberal notion of “balance”? Does that therefore make the HRW report untruthful in your opinion? Do you apply similar tests to the Robert Amsterdam report which can make no claim to be impartial.

Here’s the problem I have with the propagandists, I can accept the HRW report as being an independent, impartial history of the April/May 2010 protest. I can even accept their timeline of recent Thai political history. I doubt they or anyone else will ever get 100% accuracy, but at least it’s an attempt. For the propagandist it’s another matter altogether. If an independent report clashes with the story they are telling then the report must be a lie, not their story. Then if you can’t find evidence to disprove the report you have to attack the people writing the report.

Many years ago, when I was still young, a leading British Trotskyist, who at the time I had a lot of respect for, was talking about propaganda. It was accepted by all at the meeting that propaganda was an important tool in a party’s tactics. He said that if you wanted to see an expert in the field and someone to copy just look at how Joseph Goebbels had operated. So let’s take a bit of Goebbels and see if it begins to fit anyone.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

seems to me the main message out of the HRW report is that an independent formal investigation supported by waiving of all impunities including those claimed by military and state personnel and prosecution of all involved in the incidents is required

It certainly is a main point of the report, being the first of five key recommendations made to the Thai government. There are another three key recommendations made to parties outside of the government. In an ideal world all eight would come about.

Do you think we could now have a general consensus that the report is independent and impartial, and those creating a story outside of it to support their political views clearly do not care for independence or impartiality?

Look, we all want an independent, impartial investigation into Thailand’s latest bout of political warfare. Sadly, it ain’t gonna happen. HRW report is admirable but will be plundered for propaganda by both sides. This also seems to be the case on this forum. Why would we expect otherwise?

If you wanna blame the government and soldiers, go ahead. If you wanna blame the UDD – Burn, Bangkok, Burn! – go ahead.

My own experience of reporting on the streets and talking to those who wield power is that all sides are ready to use violence to achieve their political ends. They will also claim to be peaceful and lawful and whatever else sounds noble. But this is Thailand and Thais know that battles are rarely settled peacefully. Definitely not this one. The stakes are too high, and there is too much face to be lost.

Once you accept this, perhaps Amsterdam’s conspiracies and don’t-believe-your-own-eyes arguments of Mr Spooner will be less convincing. Or perhaps not. Ask yourself: have I taken sides in Thailand? It’s hard not to. That is the ugly reality of civil wars.

Your argument falls down completely in that one side previously achieved power via the ballot box – over and over again. And the other has only ever achieved it via force.

If you want to take a “believe your own eyes” line you should start with that most obvious one & not focus on conspiracy theories and rumours.

Hariri showed that anything is possible in terms of an investigation. It just takes the political will and the involvement of the wider community to make it happen. This nihilistic fatalism, which just panders to the worst aspects of the human spirit rather than the best, leads to one thing only – more death and chaos.

The HRW May 3, 2011 report laid out all the testimonies of foreign and Thai witnesses, mostly foreign journalists who were at the scene during the April-May2010 mayhem. And those testimonies pointed at the trail of deaths/casualties committed by the military but Englishman Andrew could NOT accept the veracity of the testimonies that pointed at the deadly mayhem/arson carried out by the Reds. My my . . . aren’t we selective Mr. Englishman Andrew.

But certain people will insist that Red Shirts were non-violent, the deadly armed and lethal Black Shirts were just tagging along with the Red Shirts but did not belong, Central World arson was not the handiwork of the Reds (but the 35 other buildings arson were Red arson yes?).

But what do Farrelly/Andrew Walker think of the HRW report? Or Nick Nostitz for that matter.

I cannot say off the top of my head whether the Army arrested some alleged MiB, but DSI/police certainly did, afterwards, and in several cases made quite a display of it

There were 2 notable arrests (which I personally think were more of a stage show) one is a military guy who “claimed” to be Sae Dang right hand man but then after some digging it turned out the guy never serve under Sae Dang and Nong Deer (Sae Dang’s daughter) stated that she never met him before. Then another guy was a red shirt guard. He was the one who was carrying couple of assault rifle the the stage, in one of the famous picture. His occupation was garbage collector and if the military thinks that a 40 years old garbage collector with barely any formal military training could give the mighty Thai Army so much trouble then they should seriously reconsidered themselves.

I’ve not been interviewed but I offer my first hand account when the truth and reconciliation committee is convened, because the only selectivity worth adumbrating is the psychopathy and asymmetric use of force to crush the citizens of Siam.

It’s not neuroscience. On the one side is the Royal Thai Army, privy to the wants and needs of a small self selecting and incestuous group of elites clinging to the rapidly dissolving past. It’s a known and repeat offender of killing its citizens, though it is entitled to defend itself against those accusations when it has the courage to face it’s victims.

On the other, a group of catapult-wielding-dissidents with everything the state can hurl at them from propaganda, disinformation, false flag manipulation, violence, money, power and an army never tested in a battle worthy of statues, but quick with its fists when up against a weaker opponent.

“But what do Farrelly/Andrew Walker think of the HRW report? Or Nick Nostitz for that matter.

NM silence about the HRW report sickens me.”

First of all – i may be a regular contributor here on New Mandala, but i am not one of the owners.
My relative silence on the HRW report right now is because i work on my own book on these events, and i do not want to compromise what i am working on before it is finished and published. I have read the report partly, found some parts good, and others not so. I wonder why my account on the gas station even has been completely left out, especially because this is one of the best documented events with video footage available from 3 sides, some of these videos show clearly that it was army who have shot unarmed protesters. I also wonder why the clash which resulted in a dead soldier through friendly fire (in front of me and a few other photographers) at the national memorial has been left out completely as well.
As to the militants, i will presently not comment any more than i have done on numerous occasions – that they existed indeed, and that i have seen in person a group of them operating on the night of the 14th.
For more than that you will have to wait until i publish my book. And before anyone asks when – it will be finished when it is finished, when i feel comfortable that my research is as complete as it can get.

I did tune in Andrew Spooner’s (#90) spin at Asian Correspondent (where Andrew prefers one way discussion and blocked off commentaries). Spooner’s main ‘thoughts’ in that article was that the radical violent M79 grenade launching and assault rifle firing Black Shirts did/do not belong to the Red Shirts.

Here’s only one excerpt from the HRW report ‘Descent into Chaos’ pertaining to the Black Shirts:
“ After [the shooting of Maj. Gen. Khattiya], the Black Shirts became extremely angry. They started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn’t fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes, it was very heavy.
I tried to hide [from the gunfire] behind the Rama VI statue [in Lumphini Park]. The Black Shirts came into the tents located behind the Rama VI statue. There were five or six black garbage bags hidden behind the tents, and the Black Shirts took those garbage bags. I saw them open one of the garbage bags and it had three or four AK-47 assault rifles in it. They took them out and started shooting immediately towards the security forces at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings. They were extremely angry. The security forces started shooting back. There were many Black Shirts around, they started to move towards the barricades and in other directions.… I stayed around until midnight and there was gunfire until then. After Seh Daeng’s [Khattiya’s] shooting, the area around Rama VI statue became only for the Black Shirts, no more protesters.” – HRW interview with photojournalist Masaro Goto, (who was present when Khattiya was shot) Bangkok, June 11, 2010

Will Andrew Spooner now deny that Gen. Khattiya who commanded the Black Shirts did not belong to the Red Shirts? (Remember all the Red Shirts leaders were reporting to Thaksin S. and Gen. Khattiya had declared that he took orders only from Thaksin (w/c did not get any denials from Thaksin).

The Red Shirts leaders could not now deny that they did not welcome and tightly embraced the Black Shirts. The Black Shirts were freely moving amidst the Red Shirts during their rallies and during the very violent encounters with the soldiers. General Khattiya himself was publicly quoted that taking his orders only from Thaksin, his main mission was to provoke an urban ‘civil war’ during the April-May 2010 Red Shirts ‘peaceful’ protests.

And people we should pay particular attention to what the former Red Shirt Chairman Veera Musikapong has to say now about theRed Shirt movement in his most recent interview in Apr 25, 2011:
“ . . . The red shirts are split. There are those with a genuine belief in democracy and parliamentary rule. They don’t want violence or a military coup. They want justice and equity. But there’s also [a certain radical faction] … The group is against the monarchy and they have infiltrated the mainstream UDD movement. . .“
“. . . If he (UDD leader Jatuporn Prompan) doesn’t change his ways and allows himself to be carried away by the cheers of supporters who endorse violence, problems for the movement will result. There will certainly be problems if supporters are dictating to the leaders, instead of the other way around. I’m worried because any mass movement which fails to listen to its leaders without any sense of control, is doomed . . .”

Former UDD Chairman Veera Musikapong in the same breath expressed his concern about the UDD’s inability “ . . to keep away from the influence of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and rid itself of its image as a group sowing hate . . .”

There you have it people from the former UDD Chairman Veera himself: The violent radical anarchic elements had ‘infiltrated the mainstream’ Red Shirt movement and the Red Shirt leaders themselves had allowed these violent radical anarchic elements to dictate to the Red Shirt leaders (like Jatuporn) and a Red Shirt ‘group sowing hate’ is the Red Shirt image that had emerged from the Black May 2010 Bangkok tragedy.

Tarrin first let me say that every single officer (up to the very top) and soldier who knowingly gave the order and carried out the sniper shooting of unarmed protesters should be arrested, tried and jailed. The violent elements of the Red/Black Shirts and their leaders too should be arrested, tried and jailed.

Could you Tarrin really say ‘with certainty’ (Spooner’s term) that none of those shot and arrested (still hundreds of Reds languishing in jail) were/are not Black Shirts.

Perhaps this excerpt from the HRW report (my apologies for the repeat and repost):

” . . . They weren’t really “black” shirts—they were sometimes in green military uniforms and others dressed like Red Shirt protesters. They didn’t have any relationship with the Red Guards, and weren’t interested in dealing with the Red Shirt leaders.… They took their work very seriously. The guys I met, they knew how to move and shoot. They also had experience handling explosives.… The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat” – Olivier Sarbil, a journalist who spent several days together with a group of armed militants at the Ratchaprasong protest camp, described to Human Rights Watch his experience with the Black Shirts, Bangkok , June 14, 2010

Could you Tarrin really say ‘with certainty’ (Spooner’s term) that none of those shot and arrested (still hundreds of Reds languishing in jail) were/are not Black Shirts.

Ofcause not since the government themselves announced long time ago that they have infact arrested members of the black-shirt clad. I’ve given a rough explaination of the case in comment 87. As things goes, you should have a rough idea of who the MiB is.

Let’s make a couple of suppositions supported partly by evidence of Nick and/or HRW.

First that, let’s call them ‘men in black’, existed and were connected in some way with with the pro-Thaksin movement.

Second that these ‘men in black’ took part in the troubles of April 10th. 2010 and took part in the gun fight on that day.

What worried me from the beginning was the purpose of these armed men. I know it’s easy to say something like, “they were there to protect the red shirts”. The problem I have is my suspicion that in the Thaksin PR machine it was decided that 2010, unlike 2009, needed real bodies. Once you begin to run with that suspicion an awful lot of what happened afterwards begins to make sense.

You didn’t read my Asian Correspondent piece very well or you would have spotted two quotes that were pulled directly from HRW’s own witnesses.

“The MiB had “no interaction with the Red Shirt leaders” and that “They didn’t have any relationship with the Red Guards, and weren’t interested in dealing with the Red Shirt leaders.””

And, for the sake of repeating myself, I have never claimed that the MiB and the Red Shirts were completely unconnected. I have just stated that an investigation is needed and until such time groups like HRW should refrain from making assertions based on thin evidence. There is no substantive evidence in that report that shows, conclusively, that the MiB were under direct orders from the Red Shirt leadership. In fact, if it did exist the Thai government would’ve produced it months ago.

In my view HRW, and Brad Adams in particular, clearly hate Thaksin. Which is fine but makes them far far less than neutral.

Even hating Thaksin and the Red Shirts is ok with me – just don’t then tell me that this makes someone “neutral” when it is quite clearly a partisan position to take.

One thing to fire back at you – why did the Thai Army shoot and kill obviously unarmed kids, women and nurses with snipers? For fun? For sport? To teach the Red Shirts a lesson? Or is this notoriously murderous rabble so poorly trained and psychotic they can’t tell the difference between a nurse handing out bandages and a man armed with an M16?

At the risk of being harangued for all kinds of sins, let me make a couple of quick comments. These are based on a read of the HRW report that included checking a lot of their sources.

I don’t think the report can be claimed to be balanced simply because it attributes blame to both sides (and there might be more than two sides). It seems quite clear that the report is about condemning violence no matter who perpetrates it. To do that for the red shirts, their claims of non-violence need to be debunked. On that score, people like Suthep should be pretty happy with the HRW report, for it spends a great deal of space recounting every element of violence that could be attributed to the red shirts.

There are some errors in the report related to footnotes that present evidence. Some of them link to YouTube videos that are said to show certain things, but don’t. That may be carelessness, but this report should not be careless.

There are some errors of fact. To take one important one, that doesn’t directly relate to April-May: HRW continues to claim that 2800 people died in the war on drugs. It seems to me that what they do here is cite the total deaths for February-April 2003 for all murders in Thailand. The then Kanit investigation I think made it clear that this was the case, and I am sure that HRW must know this.

For me, this report would have been far more powerful if there had been some forensics involved – and I mean independent forensics. For example, in all the discussion of April 10, it is very difficult to follow who is where or even where the shooting is coming from. It is also confused as to who are police and who are army in the account of this particular event. A good forensics investigator may have been able to piece the trail of evidence in videos and statements together in a way that made more sense of the events. Timelines and maps would have been very useful.

The statements on so-called MIB mentioned above are indeed contradictory in the report. At one point HRW states that Seh Daeng was not their commander or trainer. Indeed, he is said to have been the leader of non-MIB, and is cast as the nakleng-hero of street toughs who are also claimed not to have had much connection to red shirt protesters. We are also left to think that these young men joined in for the love of a good fight, even at the risk of injury and death…. Personally, I think HRW gets lost in all of this stuff, probably because it is just so complex, murky and secretive but also because of their need to show all violence that they can attribute to red shirts.

On this confusion, look, for example, at the question of numbers of MIB. The scant reporting would have us believe that there were either hundreds of them or a handful. There is no real attempt to assess how many there were. One of the cited reports says they were rationed to 30 rounds of ammunition each per day. That hardly sounds like the fierce fire-fights that are mentioned several times.

One can draw support from some statements as Vichai has done and one can also draw the kind of questions Andrew S does. One could easily agree with Les’s two suppositions based on the HRW report, but not what comes after that. Tarrin’s question remains valid. For all the HRW statements about fierce fire-fights between MIB, “militants” and so on, we are left to assume that they were well-trained militia who were pretty awful shots because there is little in the way of a military body count (compared with the heavy civilian count) or we might conclude that the military covered-up the deaths and injuries on their side. HRW is silent on this.

I also felt that there was a lack of adequate contextualization of the red shirt activities. There are a few words about it at the beginning, but the focus is on violent events that surround the red shirt demonstrations. We learn little about the reasons for demonstrations, anger, frustrations and violence. That’s maybe okay for those who follow the events carefully over time, but it is not something that aids a broader understanding of events and motivations.

None of this is to say the report should be rejected. It should be read, debated and compared with other reports that are available and will become available.

Why did the Thai Army shoot and kill obviously unarmed kids, women and nurses with snipers? For fun? For sport? To teach the Red Shirts a lesson? Or is this notoriously murderous rabble so poorly trained and psychotic they can’t tell the difference between a nurse handing out bandages and a man armed with an M16? (Spooner #96)

Again the HRW report suggested an answer, see excerpt below:

“The whole operation was staggering in its incompetence. You had scared young conscripts blazing away at the tents in Lumphini Park without any fire control. There wasn’t the command and control that you would expect during such an operation … When I was with the troops in the park along the fence, they were opening fire at people in the park … The park was used essentially as a free-fire zone, the soldiers moved and took shots along Wireless and Rama IV Road.” – A foreign military analyst, who accompanied the soldiers during the dispersal operations on May 19, 2010.

But of course the Red Shirts leaders (Thaksin and Gen. Khattiya in particular) knew that the military will employ ‘scared conscripts’ and they took this into account in their well planned and organized (and thus included Gen. Khattiya’s Black Shirts well armed brigade) peaceful-cum-violence protests. Gen. Anupong and PM Abhisit knew too that both the police and the army are ill-trained at the task of dispersing thousands of Red Shirts. Accordingly Gen. Anupon had vocally expressed his position that the military will not be used; both Abhisit govt. and Red Shirts leaders should negotiate in good faith to avoid a bloody showdown.

Good faith. That was what was missing from the Red Shirt leaders because Thaksin’s bad faith had shadowed the violent Red Shirt protests from the very start. And when PM Abhisit agreed to hold elections within six months (‘the election’ was the main point of the Red Shirts Mar-May2010 protest, people be reminded), the Red Shirt leaders too signalled agreement but backed down later on. Backed down because: (a) the violent elements of the Red Shirt leadership had asserted their supremacy in the Red Shirt movement, and (b) Supreme Leader Thaksin won’t back down because he gained nothing and Abhisit had offerred him nothing.

Spooner’s argument that the HRW report is not neutral is specifically because ‘HRW hates Thaksin and the Red Shirts’. HRW hates the Red Shirts Spooner? Why don’t you write one more article on this particular point, plus your other comparative view about ‘the equality of Abhisit’s and Thaksin’s human rights abuses’.

About HRW and Thaksin Spooner . . . are you saying that the whole Human Rights organization hates Thaksin? Maybe you should write another article also on this particular point . . . and what unconscionalbe human rights abuses could be so abominable that the whole HRW organization ‘hates’ Thaksin Spooner?

So instead of presenting any evidence you run with a bizarre conspiracy theory that Thaksin engineered a situation where his own supporters would be shot? For what possible purpose?

If there was any truth in this, at all, why wouldn’t every single Dem government minister, Army & media stooge be triumphantly celebrating this fact ad infinitum?

Really, Les, you’re going to have to do better than decidedly paranoid and odd theories.

Let’s face it, all Thaksin and his supporters need is a proper democratic election to take power.

They have proved that time and time again.

And given the recent polling figures that’s all their going to need now.

What you have here are two power groups – one that attained power via the ballot box and the other by killing people, time and time again.

As for the MiB being “connected to the Red Shirts” argument, well, apart from HRW’s own witnesses saying there was “no direct link” there isn’t much to go on.

Of course, you could turn the “connected” argument on its head and then ask if the Thai Army were connected to the Bangkok middle classes who came out and supported the murder of their fellow citizens.

And why did the Red Shirts hand back all the weapons they took at Kok Wua?

Pretty extraordinary thing to do for a group supposedly drenched in apocalyptic anarchic blood, no?

“The problem I have is my suspicion that in the Thaksin PR machine it was decided that 2010, unlike 2009, needed real bodies. Once you begin to run with that suspicion an awful lot of what happened afterwards begins to make sense.”

And, man oh man, how you run with it….. so fast and so hard that you leave all other possibilities and unanswered questions way back in the distance – pretty much out of (your) sight.

LesAbbey #95, you said that Thaksin PR machine needed real bodies. 1992, there were real bodies. Wait, we didn’t have any. And most of the families had to contend with a body-less grave. The point is Thai military always has a nasty habit of destroying/disposing bodies. One might suspect to further your career, you might have to practice doing so. Gen.Surayuth, a privy council member & former PM, had such a history. Gen.Chamlong of the PAD’s hands were very much bloodied.

To say that there were no bodies, when military grade weapons are used on crowd, makes you look like you haven’t done your history homework on Thailand.

Fact is, If guns and the army is involved. THERE WILL BE BODIES. Others are just wishful thinking.

“In my view HRW, and Brad Adams in particular, clearly hate Thaksin. Which is fine but makes them far far less than neutral.

Even hating Thaksin and the Red Shirts is ok with me – just don’t then tell me that this makes someone “neutral” when it is quite clearly a partisan position to take.”

Now what am to make of Spooner’s HRW ‘hating Thaksin and the Red Shirts’ but take his word for it.

My argument stands and my story . . . including Les Abbey’s (#95) “suspicion that in the Thaksin PR machine it was decided that 2010, unlike 2009, needed real bodies” is credible, considering that particular utube clip when the Red Shirts would even go to the extent of fabricating ‘fake dead bodies’ to raise the body count! The Thaksin/Gen. Khattiya plan for the ‘urban civil war’ required lots of dead Red Shirts Messrs. Spooner and SteveCM!

But I agree with Spooner that “the army sniper killings of the nurse and other unarmed protesters at the temple” particularly deserve independent scrutiny to find out who gave the orders and who carried out the senseless killings.

Hay.
Maybe Gen. Khattiya was a double agent pretending to be on the Red Shirt side but secretly working for the army. the Red Shirts realized what was going on and had him bumped off.
As Ralph Kramden points out @97 the MiB were either very bad shots or they were not aiming at the military at all. Very few on the military side were Killed.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

What we need, and what the government does not need is a proper independent inquiry.

My argument stands and my story . . . including Les Abbey’s (#95) “suspicion that in the Thaksin PR machine it was decided that 2010, unlike 2009, needed real bodies” is credible, considering that particular utube clip when the Red Shirts would even go to the extent of fabricating ‘fake dead bodies’ to raise the body count! “

Would “that particular utube clip when the Red Shirts would even go to the extent of fabricating ‘fake dead bodies’” be the one so beloved of StanG at one time – then proved to be surviving (probably uninjured) civilians crawling away from the other bleeding civilians (probably already dead) when the shooting finally subsided enough for them to risk moving? Even the indefatigable StanG eventually stopped making that “fake bodies” claim – but it still seems to be a firm favourite with Vichai_N.

“The Thaksin/Gen. Khattiya plan for the ‘urban civil war’ required lots of dead Red Shirts…..”. The problem with labeling something a “plan” rather than a “suspicion” is that it’s then incumbent on the label-applier to demonstrate that it was a plan – which Vichai_N (despite numerous opportunities to try) never does. I suggest he takes pause to learn from a Master; LesAbbey is smart enough to claim very little and uses oblique questions, hints and innuendo to plant suggestions. OTOH, Vichai_N seems to be perpetually stuck back in the rote repetition routines of Message-selling 101.

No, Vichai_N – that’s not how it works. You make the categorical claims and statements – you produce the compelling evidence to back up your “story”. Admit that what you choose to present as being established fact is actually no more than just another theory/speculation and I might even start to consider offering and arguing the case for alternative views.

Both here and elsewhere, you’ve been asked repeatedly to make the case for what you assert. Repeatedly, you don’t. Repeatedly trundling out the same collection of inconclusive cherry-picked “source” material, creatively paraphrasing what doesn’t suit and occasionally tossing in a novel garnish of something equally inconclusive and equally misrepresented does not make the case. Just which part of that don’t you understand?

Frankly, I’m tired of re-stating the obvious to you time after time – unlikely I’ll bother writing anything new about your stuff again. It’s sorely tempting to follow your own cut&paste model of re-cycling – but I consider that insulting to others reading these posts. Doesn’t seem to bother you, though.

Vichai, as I noted above, in a delayed response (97) via the spam filter, the HRW Report ‘Descent into Chaos’ cannot be read to “validate Vichai’s story of the Khattiya/Thaksin ‘urban civil war’ theme.” You might want to read the report a bit more carefully or stop making claims that are not made in the report by its authors (at least as far as I can ascertain).

Well I really didn’t foresee my theory on the ‘men in black’ and their purpose would be so rabidly attacked. I guess we need to look back at the history a little so let’s see how this goes.

Let’s deal with the ‘virtual bodies’ first. After the 2009 protest a claim was made by the UDD of many killed by the army. This claim was made in the press, in parliament by the Pheu Thai and on this blog. At the time we knew of four people killed. Two were security men from Bangkapi who may have been red shirt supporters but the talk was of gangster involvement. The other two were Muslims from a Petchburi Road community who were shot by red shirt supporters. HRW, who it’s hard to claim was pro-government, says ‘At least 123 people were injured, including four soldiers’, but no mention of deaths.

The claim was that the other bodies were ‘disappeared’ based on what had occurred in 1992. The problem was that 1992 we knew there were missing people. They had relatives, they had pictures, it couldn’t be hidden. In 2009 we were promised the same proof. Nick Nostitz will support that because he always said he would supply it on NM when we he got it, but it never came. I think it’s fair to say there are no more bodies from the 2009 protest to show up.

So were bodies important to the UDD and Thaksin after 2009? Well certainly they and Phue Thai were making a big thing about Abhisit killing the people after the protest was broken up. Videos were even shown during a parliamentary censure debate if I remember properly.

So it being important to Thaksin and the UDD can be surmised, but would Thaksin be capable of the evil I suggested of wanting bodies in 2010? I have never met the man personally so how could I say such a thing? Yet, let’s look at what Thaksin was capable of when in power. He did produce dead bodies in his war on drugs. Ralph may be correct in HRW over-counting the number, but I think there were bodies that weren’t virtual, no matter what the exact number. Any more? Well Thaksin came in to power with his mind set to crush the low level insurgency in the south. He can apologies now, as he did two weeks ago, but he did create quite a few bodies down there.

So what does my pet theory need. Three things really.

One, did Thaksin want bodies in 2009? Well his supporter were certainly claiming them after the protest.

Two, was Thaksin hard hearted enough to arrange want bodies in 2010? Well we can look back on his war on drugs and policies in the south to decide whether we can believe this.

Three, did it happen? Who knows until proof surfaces if that ever happens. That’s why it’s a theory because it hasn’t been proved. Mind you if you are gambling man or woman I wouldn’t bet the house against it being true.

Drop in the odd emotive exaggeration like “rabidly attacked” (even if you weren’t) and then say nothing much more – nothing that can be explicitly contradicted, that is. Ask a few hypothetical questions, “mull” aloud a few possibilities and – voila – job done. Seed sown and very little chance of any comeback.

(AndrewSpooner#108) In principle, I don’t see what’s so inherently ‘nutty’ about the idea that Thaksin sought some bloodshed, “staged the massacre of his own supporters.”

One should recall that the PAD seemed to be pursuing such tactics in 2008. There is a reference to this in one of the WikiLeaks cables (http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08BANGKOK3317.html)
————
¶9. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX believed PAD continued to aim for a violent clash that would spark a coup. He asserted that he had dined on October 6 with a leading PAD figure (NFI), who explained that PAD would provoke violence during its October 7 protest at the parliament. The unnamed PAD figure predicted (wrongly) that the Army would intervene against the
BANGKOK 00003317 003.2 OF 003
government by the evening of October 7. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted to us that PAD remained intent on a conflict that would generate at least two dozen deaths and make military intervention appear necessary and justified.
————
And of course, the PAD did get their martyrs, whom they made keen use of for some time, including pulling the Queen to one of the funerals.

Does your pooh-poohing this idea extend to the Yellow Shirts? And please spare us the heavy-handed sarcasm about lizard men with laser pistols — it cheapens your argument.

But it certainly wasn’t just Thaksin involved in supporting and sustaining that particular bloodbath even though I completely agree that Dr T (and everyone else) should be fully investigated and held accountable.

Yet, to segue from the WoD to the Bangkok Massacre is just a logical step too far.

They are completely unconnected and unrelated matters. To be honest the WoD has no bearing at all on what happened in 2010 and it is almost entirely irrelevant to the context of the Red Shirt protests which were entirely about the denigration of democracy.

Furthermore, if you want to see Thaksin’s reaction to mass, sustained political protests you only have to look to 2006 and the PAD.

He called an election (when he didn’t need to) which Abhisit boycotted because he knew he would get hammered, fairly and squarely.

And when that election was annulled, Thaksin lined up another election for October 2006. Which he would have won as well.

Instead the Thai Army staged a completely illegal coup, destroying the remaining vestiges of Thai democracy. In my view that coup has never really ended and since 2006 the Army have repeatedly sought to abrogate democracy and civilian rule.

Interestingly, for those who endlessly attempt to falsely portray the WoD as the context for the present predicament, the Thai Army’s role in creating the conditions for the Bangkok Massacre 2010 are conveniently forgotten or, as in the case of HRW’s report, reduced to a footnote.

Les, all you have is a theory born from an overactive imagination. Or maybe you just watch too much ASTV?

The matyres that you are talking about got some really shady background. Nong Bow got hot by “explosive” underneath her armpit, how was that suppose to happened was still a mystery. Porntip sort of blaming the police for using outdated tear gas canister, which was really retarded since a gas canister contain about 15g of explosive which can barely do any harm. Furthermore, in order that to happen she would have to be raising her hand when she got hit so how was that even possible was indeed puzzling. On the other hand the police found hundred of unused “ping pong bomb” scarred around the venue. The bomb contain small amount of high explosive enough to blew a chunk of meat out.

Another case was a man who was found blinded from explosion and one of his hand got blew away. Surprisingly he was still holding a pingpong bomb in another hand, afraid that it would explode if he released it.

I don’t know what’s the PAD plan was, but most of the casualties from the 7th October crash were mainly from the improvise explosive where the apr-may 2010 crash we can actually see the video clip of solders shooting into Wat Pratum. Should take that fact into consideration.

But it certainly wasn’t just Thaksin involved in supporting and sustaining that particular bloodbath even though I completely agree that Dr T (and everyone else) should be fully investigated and held accountable.

So Andrew is it completely beyond your imagination that Thaksin was capable of having armed men (MiB) out on the 10th. April 2010 to kick things off so that he wouldn’t have the same embarrassment as 2009? If it is, is that because his calling new elections shows you that he was incapable of such a violent idea? Do you really see this inherent goodness in the man’s character? I have to admit I don’t.

April the 10th. was of course the day when it could have been a repeat of 2009 with the army rolling up the demonstration like they did before.

Just off subject a bit Andrew, what is your view of Thaksin’s recent promise to end the drug problem within a year if he comes back? What do you think he means by this? Should human rights groups be worried?

“I don’t know what’s the PAD plan was, but most of the casualties from the 7th October crash were mainly from the improvise explosive”

Sorry Tarrin, but that is not true.
In terms of the famous Nong Bo, it is not entirely sure if she indeed died of her own explosives, or of the Chinsese teargas canisters with RDX charges. The autopsy performed on her in Ramathibody Hospital was not exact enough (and not done by Pornthip, who only went through the results, but has not seen the corspe), the second investigation performed by police forensics was only done on the remains on her clothes, and found both RDX on her trousers, and possibly traces of the explosive used in ping pong bombs on her blouse. This is also not a conclusive result. It would need a third an independent investigation.
The investigation of the second corpse that day was conclusive, and it was his own explosives.
The torn of limbs were most definitely a result of the Chinese teargas, which contains enough explosive to tear limbs off (this would not have been the first time such things happened – in other countries there were in the past incidents with similar injuries).
I have been there, and i was at one point nearly hit by one of these canisters. While i jumped over it, it went off with a tremendous blast.
Colleagues of mine were hit by shrapnel during the protests, and they saw exactly what hit them.

I do not blame the police though as having intentionally maimed the PAD protesters, as they have not understood what they had at hand there. They have not trained with these particular canisters, and were supplied only that morning with these canisters.

In terms of the famous Nong Bo, it is not entirely sure if she indeed died of her own explosives, or of the Chinsese teargas canisters with RDX charges.

As I said earlier, she was hit in her armpit, a very odd place to be hit considered if that’s really the case she should be holding her hand up for some reason. Furthermore, you can’t simply disregard the fact that there were pingpong bomb laying around everywhere. Just because the teargas can explode doesn’t mean the pingpong bomb can’t do the same. Note that Nong Bo hand bag was shredded if that’s ever indicated anything.

the second investigation performed by police forensics was only done on the remains on her clothes, and found both RDX on her trousers, and possibly traces of the explosive used in ping pong bombs on her blouse.

Are you sure its from the police forensics? I’ve checked around and it was actually Central Institute of Forensic Science that did the test and found RDX.

(Tarrin#116) “As I said earlier, she was hit in her armpit, a very odd place to be hit considered if that’s really the case she should be holding her hand up for some reason.”

You’re not thinking very hard on this. I don’t think it is too wild to speculate that many people, if they saw something hurtling through the air at them or exploding nearby, might put their hand up in front of their face to shield their eyes.

You have to understand the situation then. There were pitched battles going on between police and PAD, the PAD moving closer and closer to the police, firing volleys of slingshot projectiles, and the police then firing volleys of teargas grenades in relatively close distance. It was dark, and very scary.
I have to say though that there were not lots of ping pong bombs on the ground then, not that i noticed. There was lots of rubbish, and lots of marbles, ball bearings, and screws.
At the same moment Nong Bo was hit also another PAD protester lost his leg as well.

There were two forensic investigations – one that was performed by a Ramthibodi doctor on the corpse, that Pornthip OK’ed, and one counter investigation by police some time later, but only on her remaining clothes, which found RDX on her pants, and another explosive not contained in the teargas on her blouse or bra. Ripped bag? I am not sure. On my photos of Nong Bo at the scene you can see her carrying a shoulder bad that was intact.

What i am saying here is that the investigations about Nong Bo’s death are not 100% conclusive. But there is no doubt whatsoever that police used the wrong teargas the wrong way, and that has resulted in horrific injuries. But that does also not excuse the PAD, which has used horrific violence as well, and some PAD guards have also shot police officers.

I remember that at the time inane conspiracy theories made the round, such as claims that one of the men who lost his leg there was previously amputated, and only playacted. This one, for example, i can clearly confirm, was not staged. I have photographed the man just after he lost his leg, and it was unfortunately very real.
I have also photographed him nearly a year later during the party founding of the New Politics Party, and you can compare the two photos and see that they scars are absolutely consistent with the wounds he received.

“So Andrew is it completely beyond your imagination that Thaksin was capable of having armed men (MiB) out on the 10th. April 2010 to kick things off…..”

Not to preempt Andrew’s response, but it’s certainly not beyond my imagination. But then, it’s also not at all beyond my imagination that various of the authorities/powers-that-be were deeply perturbed by the conspicuous failure of the daytime April 10 dispersal attempts and the (for them) embarrassing situation of supposedly elite combat-ready troops engaged in nothing more assertive than a stand-off DJ-contest playing music over their truck speakers while the protesters did the same with their equipment.

Couple that discomforting scenario with the preceding almost entirely peaceful and very tightly-run nature of the protest since it began in March – flatly contradicting the government’s/government media mouthpieces’ dire predictions of imminent mob mayhem – as well as with the astonishing level of overwhelmingly positive reaction from Bangkokians to the red motorcade tour of the city. Then it seems to me you have the key ingredients for someone with means to decide that this situation was clearly not living up to expectations. Thus the first shots and explosions where Thanon Dinso runs to the Democracy Monument….. triggering the long-predicted but (inconveniently?) previously absent mayhem.

Is it impossible/unimaginable for that triggering to have been initiated by one (or more) of the following?

The answer, I suggest is a clear “no” – and others might yet want to add further candidates, particularly to identify who those “third hand” options might include.

Given all the smoke-and-mirrors and very limited clear key evidence, we are left weighing probabilities based on the logic/assessment of means and motive; the opportunity was available to all candidates. I don’t dismiss LesAbbey’s chosen hypothesis as impossible, but I do wonder why he seems to resolutely ignore the others – many of which have a very considerable weight of at least circumstantial evidence and logic to support them.

Dude, you and Vichai are like a tag team who can’t even be bothered to read the arguments you are railing against.

Here are my words from comment 79

“Maybe the MiB were acting under orders of the Red Shirt leadership. Maybe they were agent provocateurs. Maybe they were acting independently of both the Red Shirts and government. And maybe it was a mix of all three.”

I have no idea at all who the MiB were and who they were directly affiliated to and taking orders from. And nor does anyone else. All we have are theories. Several of which are plausible but no substantive evidence exists for any.

But the weakest one is most certainly the one that suggests Thaksin staged the mass murder of his own supporters.

Superanonymous

My comments drip with sarcasm because some of the arguments posited here are absurd nonsense.

Coming up with oddball conspiracy theories despite the overwhelming evidence that the Thai Army killed and shot people is worthy of derision.

I mean the same argument you’re putting forward could be made about what is now happening in Syria or Libya.

“The protesters and the opposition knew they’d be gunned down. It was an obvious ploy to get some martyrs and provoke an uprising.”

Andrew what is this dude business. Are you having flashbacks to some seventies sit-com or something?

So anyway I give the reasons why I think my theory is possible including what was said by Thaksin and his supporters in 2009. I suggest that having these MiB fire on soldiers on the 10th. April almost guarantees live fire coming back from the army. Didn’t the day start with a section of red shirts laying siege to the barracks?

Of course you should be able to give similar backup to the other possibilities of what started it, but I do suspect the answer lies in what did happen on the 10th. April.

I do notice you are ignoring my question on Thaksin’s latest promise of clearing up the drug problem within a year of returning. Any reason?

One could also surmise that putting 10k heavily armed troops from an Army with a very well-deserved reputation for staging massacres on the streets and then shooting nurses and unarmed protesters with snipers was a tad “provocative” but hey, if it is conspiracy theories that float your boat, stay with it. Dude.

I have no idea who killed those poor people. All I know is who stood to gain more from their killing. I don’t think it was the Army who had – not – killed them for so many weeks. Perhaps they just got frustrated though?

There was a lot of frustration, on both sides. A lot more on the side of the fellows spoiling for a fight. I remember they were frustrated, to the point of fury.

Of course, we must not pretend we are foolish enough to believe that military grade rifles are a terribly hard thing to get, in Thailand. One would think a General, would not find it overly difficult to acquire some. Perhaps as easily as giving a Corporal an order. Or taking one, from a soldier who forgot he was armed, as he started fighting with unarmed fellows, getting beaten badly. He would have felt silly waking up in hospital, without his rifle, plus the embarrassment of forgetting he had one as he got his butt kicked by guys who didn’t have one.

At least not in the AM of April 9. The PM, I remember being a different story altogether on the rifle holding.

There were two forensic investigations – one that was performed by a Ramthibodi doctor on the corpse, that Pornthip OK’ed, and one counter investigation by police some time later, but only on her remaining clothes, which found RDX on her pants, and another explosive not contained in the teargas on her blouse or bra

Now I think either BKK post is wrong (actually not that I give them any credit) or you get confused somewhere.

The latest police finding indicated that Nong Bo might have been killed by explosive because they have found traces of C4 explosive on the victimâ€™s clothes and bra. The police also claimed that all their tear gas imported from China, the United States and Spain did not contain C4 explosive but only RDX substance (cyclotrimethylene trinitramine).

The police finding was however questioned by Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunant, director of the Justice Ministryâ€™s forensic institute. She said C4 explosive could never be found on the victimâ€™s body or clothing because C4 is just a trade name of an explosive product. She insisted that RDX substance which was found in tear gas had been detected on the victimâ€™s clothing.

Its not that I believe the police since C4 is made up of RDX anyway. However, claiming that the trace of RDX was found on her cloth doesn’t prove anything since it could come from either gas canister or the pingpong bomb. However, what more puzzling is that the police claimed that their teargas canister doesn’t contain RDX. Of casuse, Porntip argue otherwise. It is also suggessted in the article that she was the one who claimed that they found trances of RDX everywhere.

The investigation clusterfuck of Oct. 7 is even made worse as Dr. Pornthip used the then not but now completely discredited G200 device at the scene. We simply cannot state with certainty what caused her death.
One thing though i can state with certainty – Dr. Pornthip did not personally examine the body. The PAD and the relatives removed the body from the morgue against the wishes of the police and gave it a very quick funeral.

Nevertheless – the police is wrong when it states that the RDX charge in the teargas canisters is not able to do serious damage.

Sorry, but I didn’t realise this thread was actually a Q&A with me. However, if you want to conduct a formal interview with me you can email a request to asiaprovocateur@gmail.com and I will see if I have time to fit you into my very busy schedule.

It’s Martino

AI have spent more time complaining about Osama Bin Laden’s assassination than the massacre of Thai civilians.

Amnesty International has just replied the letter originally sent by the membership of Amnesty International Thailand and Malaysia a month ago.

To the members and supporters of Amnesty International Thailand and Malaysia

Re: Letter of 29 April 2009, “Calling for an Investigation into the Intervention of the work of Amnesty International (AI) Malaysia by Members of the AI Asia-Pacific team”

Thank you for your letter regarding the cancellation of the 23 April 2011 event featuring Mr. Robert Amsterdam. I understand that the decision to cancel the event, especially taken less than two days before it was due to occur, caused not only confusion but consternation as well. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

I have looked into the circumstances surrounding this event and I am comfortable and confident that cancelling the event was the right decision, and that Amnesty International should stand by this position. Amnesty International cannot appear as partisan in any political scenario, and this is especially true in situations of conflict and deep political division. Regardless of the good work that Mr. Amsterdam may be doing in many situations, his position as a paid advocate for Mr. Thaksin has clearly associated him with one side of Thailand’s highly polarized political crisis. We became concerned that there was a likelihood that the proposed event would jeopardise the hard-won perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of our work in the region. Therefore we chose to allow the meeting to proceed without direct involvement from Amnesty International.

I would also like to emphasize that Amnesty International did not deny Mr. Amsterdam’s right to freedom of expression.

Amnesty International declined an opportunity for him to express his political views on a platform co-sponsored by Amnesty International. We take great pains to ensure that Amnesty International’s statements, and statements by any one of our many partners around the world who may share a platform with us, conform to our basic principles and our overall strategy in support of human rights. Therefore, it is not uncommon for us to avoid appearing at events or sharing platforms on specific issues or with particular actors around the world. We have no interest in denying Mr. Amsterdam the right to air his positions in the public arena, and in fact, he has repeatedly and forcefully done so before and after the event scheduled by AI Malaysia.

Lastly, there are also some important procedural lessons to be learned from this situation, chief among them the importance of consultation and sharing information better within the Amnesty movement. In this instance, unfortunately, both the International Secretariat and AI Thailand only learned of this event purely by chance less than two days before it was scheduled to take place. In particular, the International Secretariat specialist on Thailand was not involved or consulted in setting up this event.

I hope that this clarifies the situation for you, and I would like to thank you again for raising your concerns. Indeed it is only through such diligence and self-examination that our movement can move forward.

Everyone should be aware that Amnesty International’s International Secretariat is a private commercial company entirely independent of Amnesty International the NGO/charity.

This isn’t actually true according to Wikipedia where I thought I had better look to check what Andrew Spooner was saying. Working through the organization from the top we find the following.

The International Secretariat (IS) is responsible for the conduct and daily affairs of Amnesty International under direction from the IEC and IC.

So under direction from the IEC and IC. Who are they we should of course ask? Well the IC is as follows.

The organisations outlined above are represented by the International Council (IC) which is led by the IC Chairperson. Members of sections and structures have the right to appoint one or more representatives to the Council according to the size of their membership.

And the IEC?

The International Executive Committee (IEC), led by the IEC Chairperson, consists of eight members and the IEC Treasurer. It is elected by, and represents, the IC and meets biannually.

So either Wikipedia or Andrew Spooner has it wrong. That’s not to say that having a democratic system makes an organization incorruptible. We only have to look at FIFA to see that’s necessarily true.

Anyway I guess the lesson is, ‘Everyone should be aware that’ not everything that is written is true.

Seems to me it all started with Thaksin’s acquittal of asset concealment shortly after the 2001 election.

Continue from Andrew Spooner #132

For some reason many people seems to think Thailand history somehow start during when Thaksin took office (you know, those chaos and corruption et al). For me its all start (to go down hill at least) when Sarit took over the power from the people assembly.

There are arguable grounds for starting the clock at a number of points in Thai history – but, rather plainly, starting it anytime before Thaksin doesn’t suit those who prefer their chosen (and very limited) agenda to relevant context.

Allowing that the 2001 assets verdict was almost certainly a product of political wind-blow rather than neutrally based on the evidence presented (no change there, then), it’s worth noting that the Thai people had the perfect opportunity to register their disgust/displeasure at the decision in the 2005 election. I suspect most readers here are well aware how that vote turned out.

Allowing that the 2001 assets verdict was almost certainly a product of political wind-blow rather than neutrally based on the evidence presented (no change there, then), it’s worth noting that the Thai people had the perfect opportunity to register their disgust/displeasure at the decision in the 2005 election.

Actually I think the law about prohibiting politician is very ridiculous what they should do instead is let them declare everything.

I suggest that having these MiB fire on soldiers on the 10th. April almost guarantees live fire coming back from the army. Didn’t the day start with a section of red shirts laying siege to the barracks?

And if the police had done their job, would there have been any need for troups to be deployed?

Were not the Police bought off by Taksin?

And that goes back some time too.

When the police are unable to, or in this case refused to perform their duty, then what choice is there but to use the military?
Unfortunately, they are not trained for policing and it is no surprise things went a bit haywire.
Really they should be commended for their general show of restraint rather than be condemned for a few regrettable incidents.
It could well have been much worse.

But if the police had done their duty, none of it would have happened.